When Two Real Estate Agents Are Involved: Who Is Entitled to the Brokerage ?

A recent Tel Aviv Magistrates Court ruling addressed a situation in which two brokers, formerly in partnership, each assisted the same buyer at different stages of a transaction. Although only one broker ultimately completed the deal, the court found that both had contributed meaningfully at different points and were therefore considered “effective causes.” As a result, the buyer was ordered to pay a partial commission to the first broker, along with legal fees. The case highlights the importance of clear partnership agreements between brokers and serves as a reminder for buyers to understand who represents the property at each stage of the process.

Real estate transactions in Israel sometimes involve working with multiple brokers over time, especially when listings change hands or partnerships shift. A recent decision from the Tel Aviv Magistrates Court helps clarify how the law views these situations and reminds professionals and buyers alike of the importance of transparency throughout a transaction.

This case, included in the 82nd edition of our digest on brokerage rulings, involved two brokers who had previously worked together and later assisted the same buyer at different stages. The court was asked to determine how the brokerage fee should be handled under these specific circumstances.

The buyer initially worked with Broker A, who showed her the apartment twice while she was still in partnership with Broker B. At that stage, negotiations stalled, mainly because the buyer was concerned about renovation costs.

Months later, after the partnership ended, Broker B returned to the buyer with updated information: the apartment had been renovated, she had received exclusivity from the seller, and she believed she was the one authorized to continue marketing the property. The buyer then signed a new agreement with Broker B, who actively advanced the negotiations and eventually helped complete the transaction.

Broker A later claimed she was entitled to a commission for her earlier involvement. The buyer responded that if this were the case, Broker B should cover that cost, since she had been told that B was the sole person responsible for the listing. This disagreement led the court to examine the full sequence of events.

Judge Dalia Ward found that, based on the specific facts of this case, both brokers contributed meaningfully at different stages. Broker A’s early work had nearly resulted in a deal, and Broker B later finalized the transaction once circumstances changed. Because both played a role at different times, the court viewed their actions as complementary.

The buyer was therefore ordered to pay Broker A a commission of 0.5% plus VAT, as well as 5,500 shekels plus VAT in legal costs. The court did not require the buyer to pay Broker B’s expenses, noting that B had given the buyer the impression that she alone had the right to handle the property, which later proved inaccurate.

The ruling reinforces the importance of clarity — both for professionals and for buyers. For brokers, it highlights the need for partnership agreements that clearly define what happens to shared listings if the partnership ends, including who may continue marketing the property and how any future commission should be divided. For buyers, it is a reminder of why written agreements matter and why it is always advisable to understand who represents what, especially if different brokers are involved at various moments along the way.

It’s worth noting that the outcome in this case was based on its unique facts. Another court might have reached a different result, and certain questions — such as how partnership agreements apply or how misleading statements should affect fees — remain open for interpretation. Still, the ruling offers helpful guidance for preventing misunderstandings in the future.

T.A. (Tel Aviv) 60149-04-21 Sadeh v. Rekem, issued on 26.10.25 and published in Nevo.